Policy | Security | Investigation

cyber ethics

January 08, 2010

Investigators engaged in electronic discovery should be mindful of posted terms, conditions, EULAs, labels, notices, warnings, banners, contracts, agreements and no-trespassing signs. They can have legal effect in the electronic world, and may be binding on an investigator who encounters them.

While off-duty, restaurant employees maintained a password-protected MySpace forum, labeled as “talk about all the crap/drama/and gossip occurring in our workplace, without having to worry about outside eyes prying in.” Pietrylo created and maintained the forum, explicitly designated it as “invitation only,” and distributed passwords to a limited number of employees. One of these employees gave her password (whether voluntarily or otherwise is unclear) to restaurant management. Management accessed the forum, and discovered . . .

July 08, 2009

Computers change how police investigations work. Take a traffic citation, for example. In the past, for a police officer to issue a traffic ticket, the officer had to be present at the scene and had to talk to the motorist face-to-face. At an emotional level – as well as an administrative one -- the police officer was deterred from issuing tickets for minor, technical violations of traffic laws.

For example, if an officer observed a motorist not quite clear an intersection before the traffic light turned red, the officer might think twice before chasing the motorist down and issuing a citation. To pursue the motorist takes time away from other duties. Then, the motorist may argue the officer’s observation was wrong. Further, the motorist may confront the officer as a human. The motorist may say by words, body language or the expression on his face, “you are a jerk for issuing me this frivolous ticket.” Police officers don’t like being told (even politely and subtly) that they are hyper-technical jerks.

Digital technology changes this legal proceeding. A red light camera at an intersection transmits electronic records to a police officer (detective) who is not standing on the street, but seated in a comfortable office. The records provide evidence that is more fixed than mere memory. The officer can review the digital evidence in no time and issue the citation with the click of a button. For the officer, the legal investigation and decision are like playing a dull, unemotional video game. The officer may issue many more citations than in the past.

Automated traffic cameras can make a motorist angry. The motorist loses the ability to discuss the situation with the investigating officer at the scene, where the motorist might talk about the danger of slamming on the brakes when a light changes. With computer enforcement, the motorist just gets a bland notice in the mail with a photograph and possibly web access to a computer video of the event.

Jim Ash, a citizen of College Station, Texas, feels that the dehumanization of law enforcement is an infringement of privacy, a civil right. In our electronic age, privacy is an ill-defined notion, but it resonates with people in a democracy.

Mr. Ash is leading a grass-roots voter referendum [see Footnote] to ban red-light cameras in College Station. He is exploiting the power that modern technology affords individuals – a web site and numerous freedom of information act (FOIA) requests for discovery of voluminous electronic records (including email) maintained by the City of College Station and other local governments in Texas. He says he has uncovered an email from the mayor acknowledging that red light cameras will cause more rear-end collisions, while possibly reducing other collisions. (Most mayors would prefer that their email be withheld from political activists like Ash.)

Ash has collected about 1000 verified signatures from College Station voters, enough to cause the referendum to appear on a forthcoming ballot. He plans to deliver the signatures to City Hall management in a rally scheduled for around Noon, July 16, 2009.